The current research examined two fundamental motives that could lie at the root of separatist groups’ desire to be independent from the nonseparatist majority: the need to maintain the own subgroup identity and the need to preserve power vis-à-vis the majority. These motives were examined in two studies through surveys among samples of indigenous people in West Papua (N = 201 and N = 248), where separatist movements are actively striving for secession from the Republic of Indonesia. As expected, identity threat increased perceptions of injustice in both studies, whereas power threat increased the need for subgroup empowerment. Perceived injustice and need for subgroup empowerment, in turn, decreased support for reconciliation with the majority. The current research is the first to examine how identity and power motives combine in predicting separatist intentions. The studies reveal important insights that can contribute to the reconciliation of separatist conflict.
AbramsD.GrantP. R. (2012). Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: The political rise of Scottish nationalism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 674-689.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
AspinallE.BergerM. T. (2001). The break-up of Indonesia? Nationalisms after decolonisation and the limits of the nation-state in post-cold war Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 22, 1003-1024.
5.
BakkeK. M.O’LoughlinJ.WardM. D. (2009). Reconciliation in conflict-affected societies: Multilevel modeling of individual and contextual factors in the North Caucasus of Russia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99, 1012-1021.
6.
BanducciS. A.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2004). Minority representation, empowerment, and participation. Journal of Politics, 66, 534-556.
7.
Bar-TalD.BenninkG. (2004). Nature of reconciliation as an outcome and as a process. In Bar Siman-TovY. (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 1-38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BearyB. (2011). Separatist movements: A global reference. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
BertschG. K.CraftC.JoneS. A.BeckM. (Eds.). (2000). Crossroads and conflict: Security and foreign policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.
11.
BrancatiD. (2006). Decentralization: Fueling the fire or dampening the flames of ethnic conflict and secessionism?International Organization, 60, 651-685.
12.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. (2004). Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261-304.
13.
CedermanL. E.HugS.SchädelA.WucherpfennigJ. (2015). Territorial autonomy in the shadow of conflict: Too little, too late?American Political Science Review, 109, 354-370.
14.
CedermanL. E.WimmerA.MinB. (2010). Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics, 62, 87-119.
15.
CehajicS.BrownR.CastanoE. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29, 351-367.
16.
CollinsA. (2003). Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, regional, and global issues. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
17.
CorrellJ.ParkB. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 341-359.
18.
CrispR. J.StoneC. H.HallN. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230-243.
19.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2008). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296-330.
20.
DuckittJ. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684-696.
21.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161-186.
22.
FisherJ. D.NadlerA.LittleJ. S.SaguyT. (2008). Help as a vehicle to reconciliation, with particular reference to help for extreme health needs. In NadlerA.MalloyT. E.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 447-468). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
FiskeS. T. (2012). Journey to the edges: Social structures and neural maps of inter-group processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 1-12.
24.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
GebelO. (2007). Separatism in Canada-A nation at stake? The example of Québec and Newfoundland and Labrador. Berlin, Germany: Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakulät II, Institut für Anglistik/Amerikanistik.
27.
HaleH. E. (2000). The parade of sovereignties: Testing theories of secession in the Soviet setting. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 31-56.
28.
HarffB.GurrT. R. (1989). Victims of the state: Genocides, politicides and group repression since 1945. International Review of Victimology, 1(1), 23-41.
29.
HartleyL. K.McGartyC.DonaghueN. (2013). Understanding disagreement within the majority about action to atone for past wrongs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(S2), E246-E261.
HesliV. L.ReisingerW. M.MillerA. H. (1997). The sources of support for separatism: Public opinion in three Soviet republics. Nations and Nationalism, 3, 201-230.
32.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
33.
HurM. H. (2006). Empowerment in terms of theoretical perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and components across disciplines. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 523-540.
34.
IyerL.ManiA.MishraP.TopalovaP. B. (2011). The power of political voice: Women’s political representation and crime in India (Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 11-092). Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-092.pdf
35.
JenneE. K.SaidemanS. M.LoweW. (2007). Separatism as a bargaining posture: The role of leverage in minority radicalization. Journal of Peace Research, 44, 539-558.
36.
KingsburyD.LaoutidesC. (2015). Territorial separatism in global politics: Causes, outcomes and resolution. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
37.
KishtonJ. M.WidamanK. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757-765.
38.
LevineR. A.CampbellD. T. (1971). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley.
39.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
40.
MacLachlanA.SpeightA. (Eds.) (2013). Justice, responsibility and reconciliation in the wake of conflict. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
41.
MashuriA.van LeeuwenE.HanurawanF. (2016). How morality threat promotes reconciliation in separatist conflict: A majority group perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430216677302
42.
MurrellA. J.Dietz-UhlerB. L.DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.DroutC. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative Action: Perception of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(1-2), 71-86.
43.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
44.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
45.
NadlerA.Harpaz-GorodeiskyG.Ben-DavidY. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 823-834.
46.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2011). Promoting intergroup reconciliation in conflicts involving direct and structural violence: Implications of the needs-based model. In TroppL. R.MallettR. K. (Eds.), Beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 201-219). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47.
NoorM.BrownR.GonzalezR.ManziJ.LewisC. A. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 819-832.
48.
RossM. L. (2004). What do we know about natural resources and civil war?Journal of Peace Research, 41, 337-356.
49.
RouhanaN. N. (2004). Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation processes: The Israeli-Palestinian case. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(1), 33-52.
50.
RouhanaN. N.FiskeS. T. (1995). Perception of power, threat, and conflict intensity in Asymmetric intergroup conflict Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(1), 49-81.
51.
SaniF. (2005). When subgroups secede: Extending and refining the social psychological model of schism in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1074-1086.
52.
SaniF. (2008). Schism in groups: A social psychological account. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 718-732.
53.
SaniF.TodmanJ. (2002). Should we stay or should we go? A social psychological model of schisms in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1647-1655.
54.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243-248.
55.
ScottD.BishopJ. W.ChenX. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in US invested enterprise in China. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 3-19.
56.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.Canetti-NisimD.UllrichJ. (2008). The role of acceptance and empowerment in promoting reconciliation from the perspective of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 159-186.
57.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021-1030.
58.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SiemB.OettingenM.MummendeyA.NadlerA. (2013). When status differences are illegitimate, groups’ needs diverge: Testing the needs-based model of reconciliation in contexts of status inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 137-148.
60.
SindicD.ReicherS. D. (2009). “Our way of life is worth defending”: Testing a model of attitudes towards superordinate group membership through a study of Scots’ attitudes towards Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 114-129.
61.
SpearsR.JettenJ.DoosjeB. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332-362). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
StephanW. G.BonieckiK. A.YbarraO.BettencourtA.ErvinK. S.JacksonL. A.. . . RenfroC. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254.
63.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MorrisonR. K. (2016). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 255-278). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
64.
SterbaS. K.MacCallumR. C. (2010). Variability in parameter estimates and model fit across repeated allocations of items to parcels. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 322-358.
65.
TanA. (2000). Armed Muslim separatist rebellion in Southeast Asia: Persistence, prospects, and implications. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 23, 267-288.
66.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE.ChristO. (2007). Cross-community contact, perceived status differences, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating roles of individual-level versus group-level threats and the moderating role of social identification. Political Psychology, 28(1), 53-68.
67.
TebayN. (2005). West Papua: The struggle for peace with justice. London, England: Catholic Institute for International Relations.
68.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
69.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
70.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504-535.
71.
VerkuytenM. (2009). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 31-52.
72.
WidjojoM. S.ElizabethA.Al RahabA.PamungkasC.DewiR. (2010). Papua road map: Negotiating the past, improving the present, and securing the future. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
73.
ZimmermanM. A.ZahniserJ. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189-204.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
